You guys are to conservative. Yes, yes, old school is always cool, and because the Photography world is driven my a mass flood of hipsters, anything retro is awesome......Photography will not survive on its own in this changing age so grow up. Nikon did, so why dont you all.

your average 17 year old, who spends 6 hours a day on facebook has not the money to buy a D4 or 1D X.it´s pros who buy this camera not some blogger or youtube nerd with no job and too much time.

how many timelaps videos can you watch before it gets boring?

you can´t frame or hang a video on your wall.. video is for youtube. stupid little clips for people with too much time.it will never have the same impact as a good photograph.

canon splits the cinema and still cameras and that´s a good thing.

i hope the next STILL cameras will see more improvements for STILLS.

and you sure don´t need AF as cinematographer.... so this whole thing makes not much sense beside a bigger featurelist.

VerbalAlchemy

Perhaps there should be a moratorium on the "but video is really secondary and I could do without it" talk, at least in threads with video-centric titles. This perspective has been voiced (with few points that elaborate on the base idea but many that demonstrate biased thinking) so often as to be implicit. The world knows some of you could care less about video, that you're all about stills. The argument now goes without saying.

The original poster is clearly interested in video, and anyone could see as much from the thread's title alone. Nonetheless, his original talking points have been only indirectly acknowledged. I don't understand why the anti-video perspectives hijack so many threads. It's not like pushing the "we don't care about video" agenda in the CR forums is going to dramatically sway Canon's thinking, especially since most of the arguments rely on anecdotal experience or emotional reasoning. Moreover, it's not like improvements in stills AND video are mutually exclusive. Allowing a "what do you think of this video feature" thread to evolve without anti-video interference will NOT change Canon's thinking. If there's some evidence that Canon's stills technology is lagging because the company has redirected too much R&D to video, then perhaps there's a valid gripe-- but I don't often see this sort of argument. I also doubt that it's the case.

Is the HDSLR video revolution a little played out? Given the surplus of shallow DOF fetish videos and time lapse movies on YouTube, sure. But this doesn't invalidate the entire enterprise so much as attest to an age-old truth: better tools won't necessarily make an unimaginative person more creative. But the technology is used in innovative and engaging ways by many, including some for whom traditional camcorders would be inadequate and non-DSLR large-sensor video cameras prohibitively expensive. Plus, some people actually prefer (notwithstanding "limitations" that require elaborate rigging) the DSLR form factor for video-- something the DSLR-inspired design of the C300 demonstrates. In short, video is here to stay. If someone has a more substantial criticism than "SLRs are supposed to be for STILLS, darn it," that's one thing. But a lot of the commentary fails to evolve beyond this (not altogether cogent) idea.

As for the OP's original point, I think Canon will have to reassess the clean HDMI output-- but if they weren't convinced the C300 required it, I'm skeptical that this move by Nikon will force Canon's hand. That said, the fact that the EOS division has to negotiate a bit with Canon's broadcast division seems to give Nikon some relative flexibility, at least for the present. That latitude could allow Nikon to aggressively pursue some things that Canon has been sheepish about. I'm still uncertain about Canon's likely response, though. In certain ways, the C300 is less impressive on paper (at least for the price) than the FS100, let alone the F3 or Scarlet. The reviews, however, have suggested that Cinema EOS is a pretty impressive new system, it's lowly 8-bit codec notwithstanding. If Canon is similarly confident that 1DX vs. D4 tests will bear out the merits of their product, then I doubt they'll change anything for now. The photographers at whom these cameras are targeted won't buy cameras based on specs alone, since virtually all of them will have glass investments to consider and enough experience to know that press releases don't translate into the best product.

You guys are to conservative. Yes, yes, old school is always cool, and because the Photography world is driven my a mass flood of hipsters, anything retro is awesome......Photography will not survive on its own in this changing age so grow up. Nikon did, so why dont you all.

your average 17 year old, who spends 6 hours a day on facebook has not the money to buy a D4 or 1D X.it´s pros who buy this camera not some blogger or youtube nerd with no job and too much time.

how many timelaps videos can you watch before it gets boring?

you can´t frame or hang a video on your wall.. video is for youtube. stupid little clips for people with too much time.it will never have the same impact as a good photograph.

canon splits the cinema and still cameras and that´s a good thing.

i hope the next STILL cameras will see more improvements for STILLS.

and you sure don´t need AF as cinematographer.... so this whole thing makes not much sense beside a bigger featurelist.

+1 I also hope for a more STILL oriented camera. 5D3. Hope it's not the videoking. Hope it's going to be a still oriented as posted earlier by CRguy. A 1Dx-ish 5D3 would rock quite a bit. May the "C" labeled body get the MP and whatever they like put into it, or the mystic 3D.

Perhaps there should be a moratorium on the "but video is really secondary and I could do without it" talk, at least in threads with video-centric titles. This perspective has been voiced (with few points that elaborate on the base idea but many that demonstrate biased thinking) so often as to be implicit. The world knows some of you could care less about video, that you're all about stills. The argument now goes without saying.

The original poster is clearly interested in video, and anyone could see as much from the thread's title alone. Nonetheless, his original talking points have been only indirectly acknowledged. I don't understand why the anti-video perspectives hijack so many threads. It's not like pushing the "we don't care about video" agenda in the CR forums is going to dramatically sway Canon's thinking, especially since most of the arguments rely on anecdotal experience or emotional reasoning. Moreover, it's not like improvements in stills AND video are mutually exclusive. Allowing a "what do you think of this video feature" thread to evolve without anti-video interference will NOT change Canon's thinking. If there's some evidence that Canon's stills technology is lagging because the company has redirected too much R&D to video, then perhaps there's a valid gripe-- but I don't often see this sort of argument. I also doubt that it's the case.

Is the HDSLR video revolution a little played out? Given the surplus of shallow DOF fetish videos and time lapse movies on YouTube, sure. But this doesn't invalidate the entire enterprise so much as attest to an age-old truth: better tools won't necessarily make an unimaginative person more creative. But the technology is used in innovative and engaging ways by many, including some for whom traditional camcorders would be inadequate and non-DSLR large-sensor video cameras prohibitively expensive. Plus, some people actually prefer (notwithstanding "limitations" that require elaborate rigging) the DSLR form factor for video-- something the DSLR-inspired design of the C300 demonstrates. In short, video is here to stay. If someone has a more substantial criticism than "SLRs are supposed to be for STILLS, darn it," that's one thing. But a lot of the commentary fails to evolve beyond this (not altogether cogent) idea.

As for the OP's original point, I think Canon will have to reassess the clean HDMI output-- but if they weren't convinced the C300 required it, I'm skeptical that this move by Nikon will force Canon's hand. That said, the fact that the EOS division has to negotiate a bit with Canon's broadcast division seems to give Nikon some relative flexibility, at least for the present. That latitude could allow Nikon to aggressively pursue some things that Canon has been sheepish about. I'm still uncertain about Canon's likely response, though. In certain ways, the C300 is less impressive on paper (at least for the price) than the FS100, let alone the F3 or Scarlet. The reviews, however, have suggested that Cinema EOS is a pretty impressive new system, it's lowly 8-bit codec notwithstanding. If Canon is similarly confident that 1DX vs. D4 tests will bear out the merits of their product, then I doubt they'll change anything for now. The photographers at whom these cameras are targeted won't buy cameras based on specs alone, since virtually all of them will have glass investments to consider and enough experience to know that press releases don't translate into the best product.

very well said.

What it all boils down to is business decisions and personally i feel canon have made a few very serious mistakes recently which Nikon have used to their advantage dealing canon a double blow. Perhaps canons mistakes have been born because of the success of the 5D2 which is ironic because it was and still is such a hit camera and bang for buck it is still king despite its faults. I think canon were not prepared for the sales hit the 5D2 would deliver to the uber flagship 1Ds3 and have mistakenly crippled subsequent cameras so as not to canabilise sale further up the chain. Video played a significant part of the popularity of the 5D2 and that is why those users would like to see the next model improve on the things they use, this is perfectly understandable and human nature.

Personally i don't use the video features so its not a consideration in my decision to buy at all, i don't care if the camera has video or not i don't understand all the codec stuff and don't want to but i don't feel the video features take anything away from the functionality of the camera for its still shooting purpose as far as i can tell its all mostly programing stuff that gives it these functions. If they started changing button layouts to suit video over still shooting then i would have a problem but as long as the bodies remain functional and accessible for the primary intended purpose shooting stills then i am happy.

Now Nikon have gone the other way and propogated high end tech into much lower bodies for example a suitable AF system even the low end Nikon Dslrs have an acceptable AF system and everything from the D90 up. well canon don't really have much that can compete if it doesn't have a 1 in its name, (I don't have a 7D but apparently its AF system is not without its quirks too but it seems it is much closer to what it needs to be).

Nikon also don't have a cinema line to try and protect so they can go balls out on video, don't think they sat by and watched the 5D2 take off like a rocket, they want in on that action no doubt and have come back into the ring swinging. I am sure the 5D2 took a lot of potential sales away from Nikon over the years too. Perhaps Nikon execs are spending more time on canon rumors than their canon counterparts

Currently i have alot invested in canon glass, far too much to change back to nikon on a whim and Nikon are not without their faults either. My current cameras work for me although for me the AF on the 5D2 is a real painso i am really hoping the successor fixes this. I like everyone else here am waiting anxiously to see if canon step up to the challenge. I am most interested in seeing what happens with a non gripped pro body to compete against the D800. if the put out some crippled wishy washy upgrade then i will have to seriously look at the economics of changing back.

Canon need to look at the success of the 5D2 and try to replicate that success in its replacement not to fear it as it seems they have been. from a business standpoint it makes sense for them to retain the still a video integrated into one body because of the manufacturing savings compared to having seperate niche bodies.

my feelings are they should keep the 5d line where it is affordable feature packed best seller but for gods sake fix the AF.

I really would like to see a non gripped pro body come out at a higher price point with more of the 1Dx in it.

one thing is certain and that is there are interesting times ahead in 2012

Those are some good features on the part of the D4, but what about the 1D X's full-sensor sampling (to reduce moire)? Those D4 features won't obviate the need to get a replacement anti-aliasing filter (at best) if it's not binning on par with the 1D X.

Other than that, though, Nikon deserves credit for the new memory card format (assuming it's ready for prime time, but the minimum transfer rate specs look pretty darn good compared to CF) and especially the uncompressed HDMI (I guess lacking that was the cost to Canon of the binning - maybe no CPU horsepower left to do it).

It would be interesting if the decision from each manufacturer was to either trade away uncompressed HDMI output or to forego full-sensor sampling (I would expect one of these would take more CPU time than the other, but wouldn't be surprised if each was CPU intensive enough that it essentially foreclosed implementing the other feature within the CPU and power budget).

Cinematographers generally don't care about auto-focus with video, because it's a lot like using "auto" exposure mode on your SLR - you're completely giving up creative control. Sometimes you want to go in and out of focus on purpose, or perhaps you want a scene to be completely defocused. But most importantly, there is a lot of beauty that comes from the particular way you transition from "out of focus" to "in focus". You make that visual decision and this simply cannot be automated to look the way you want it to look.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When you look at the specs the ONLY thing that i can see that can be classified as a bonus to a cinematographer is the clean HDMI.

And thats only really if you are using the HDMI monitor for focus pulling. Most of the video guys i know still rely on things such as the Z Finder and just use the HDMI for playback on the external monitor.

*Now if Canon can make the HDMI resolution independent to the internal screen and have both "ON" that would be a much better solution.

Perhaps there should be a moratorium on the "but video is really secondary and I could do without it" talk, at least in threads with video-centric titles. This perspective has been voiced (with few points that elaborate on the base idea but many that demonstrate biased thinking) so often as to be implicit. The world knows some of you could care less about video, that you're all about stills. The argument now goes without saying.

The original poster is clearly interested in video, and anyone could see as much from the thread's title alone. Nonetheless, his original talking points have been only indirectly acknowledged. I don't understand why the anti-video perspectives hijack so many threads. It's not like pushing the "we don't care about video" agenda in the CR forums is going to dramatically sway Canon's thinking, especially since most of the arguments rely on anecdotal experience or emotional reasoning. Moreover, it's not like improvements in stills AND video are mutually exclusive. Allowing a "what do you think of this video feature" thread to evolve without anti-video interference will NOT change Canon's thinking. If there's some evidence that Canon's stills technology is lagging because the company has redirected too much R&D to video, then perhaps there's a valid gripe-- but I don't often see this sort of argument. I also doubt that it's the case.

Is the HDSLR video revolution a little played out? Given the surplus of shallow DOF fetish videos and time lapse movies on YouTube, sure. But this doesn't invalidate the entire enterprise so much as attest to an age-old truth: better tools won't necessarily make an unimaginative person more creative. But the technology is used in innovative and engaging ways by many, including some for whom traditional camcorders would be inadequate and non-DSLR large-sensor video cameras prohibitively expensive. Plus, some people actually prefer (notwithstanding "limitations" that require elaborate rigging) the DSLR form factor for video-- something the DSLR-inspired design of the C300 demonstrates. In short, video is here to stay. If someone has a more substantial criticism than "SLRs are supposed to be for STILLS, darn it," that's one thing. But a lot of the commentary fails to evolve beyond this (not altogether cogent) idea.

As for the OP's original point, I think Canon will have to reassess the clean HDMI output-- but if they weren't convinced the C300 required it, I'm skeptical that this move by Nikon will force Canon's hand. That said, the fact that the EOS division has to negotiate a bit with Canon's broadcast division seems to give Nikon some relative flexibility, at least for the present. That latitude could allow Nikon to aggressively pursue some things that Canon has been sheepish about. I'm still uncertain about Canon's likely response, though. In certain ways, the C300 is less impressive on paper (at least for the price) than the FS100, let alone the F3 or Scarlet. The reviews, however, have suggested that Cinema EOS is a pretty impressive new system, it's lowly 8-bit codec notwithstanding. If Canon is similarly confident that 1DX vs. D4 tests will bear out the merits of their product, then I doubt they'll change anything for now. The photographers at whom these cameras are targeted won't buy cameras based on specs alone, since virtually all of them will have glass investments to consider and enough experience to know that press releases don't translate into the best product.

+1

Well said

Logged

Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

J. McCabe

Other than that, though, Nikon deserves credit for the new memory card format (assuming it's ready for prime time, but the minimum transfer rate specs look pretty darn good compared to CF) and especially the uncompressed HDMI (I guess lacking that was the cost to Canon of the binning - maybe no CPU horsepower left to do it).

Isn't binning is a rather cheap operation in terms of CPU cycles?

Logged

M.R.Rafsanjani

But looking at the positive side and my faith in Canon which generally well known with its movie making capabilities and HDSLR : I think a new (maybe) Cinema EOS DSLR will able beat D4 in term of recording. I knew D4 is great, but Canon can do better.

But looking at the positive side and my faith in Canon which generally well known with its movie making capabilities and HDSLR : I think a new (maybe) Cinema EOS DSLR will able beat D4 in term of recording. I knew D4 is great, but Canon can do better.

Just my belief.

I agree the D4 seem like a great machine. However I still think for still the 1DX will be better (and hopefully match the D4 in high ISO performance). I dont know enought about video to comment, but I am confident about the still portion!

Ryusui

I love still photography. I love taking pictures that look good as poster size prints. But I am not everybody else. And for better or worse, the world is changing. People don't have photo albums they have flickr pages and facebook. They don't read books, they wait for the movie. They think a quality MP3 player is the pinacle of audio fidelity. And people want video with their SLRs. The times they are a-changin', and if we don't adapt with them....well I think I can sum it up like this: Kodak.

But looking at the positive side and my faith in Canon which generally well known with its movie making capabilities and HDSLR : I think a new (maybe) Cinema EOS DSLR will able beat D4 in term of recording. I knew D4 is great, but Canon can do better.

Just my belief.

I agree the D4 seem like a great machine. However I still think for still the 1DX will be better (and hopefully match the D4 in high ISO performance). I dont know enought about video to comment, but I am confident about the still portion!

I read somewhere (I think NR) D4 might make the videographers change their mind not just because the the HD video recording, but the high ISO performance during the recording <seems some claims that ISO performance in Canon HD recording still poor, I don't know about this due to lack of exp.>.